Is Rubio Using 2nd Amendment Bill to Mount 2020 Campaign?

If you are a loyal patriotic American who values your Second Amendment right to own and possess a firearm, the worst places for you to live are Chicago, Baltimore, New York City and Washington DC. Both Chicago and Washington DC have had strict anti-Second Amendment laws struck down in the past by the US Supreme Court.

When Illinois lawmakers, mainly from Chicago, passed a state law making it illegal to transport any firearm off of your own personal property and it didn’t matter if the gun was loaded or unloaded. The only exceptions to the law were police, target shooters and hunters. The way the law was written, grandpa could not legally drive over to his grandson’s house to hand down his favorite shotgun. The law was challenged and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the state, citing an earlier Supreme Court decision two earlier cases.

Our nation’s capital has long tried to enact the strictest anti-gun laws in the country. At one point, they outlawed ownership of all handguns, but in 2008, the US Supreme Court struck down the 32-year-old ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.

That didn’t set well with DC politicians who immediately got to work to re-write new anti-gun laws. As soon as their new anti-gun laws were written and passed, more lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of those laws.

In July 2014, US District Judge Frederick J. Scullin issued his ruling that sent shock waves through Washington DC liberal politicians. In his ruling, Scullin cited the 2008 Supreme Court decision along with the 2010 Supreme Court decision that overturned Chicago’s ban on handguns.

“There is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

Scullin’s decision had a much broader effect than you may first realize. According to DC gun law expert Emily Miller, who said she was shocked by the decision:

“Anyone who is a non-D.C. resident who legally can carry in their home state, whether open or concealed, can carry in D.C. D.C. residents, if you have a registered gun like I do, I can carry. If you do not have a registered gun you can still be arrested on the unregistered gun law.”

(1) The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms independent of service in an organized militia.

(2) Federal courts have repeatedly found provisions of the gun control laws of the District of Columbia to be unconstitutional, most recently in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014), which invalidated on Second Amendment grounds the District’s total ban on carrying firearms outside the home for self-defense. Despite these reproofs, District officials have repeatedly and publicly asserted their determination to continue passing laws aimed at curbing the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding residents and visitors.

(3) The law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.

(4) The District of Columbia remains one of the most dangerous large cities in the United States. The District’s gun control regulations interfere with the right of law-abiding residents and visitors to protect themselves from violent crime.

(5) Federal law already provides comprehensive regulation of the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, including the licensing of commercial conduct. These regulations apply in the District of Columbia, as elsewhere. The District’s attempt to expand upon these regulations with its own regulations has created a confusing, onerous, and inhibiting environment for individuals in the District who wish to engage in lawful commercial activities relating to firearms.

(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia’s laws in order to restore the fundamental rights of its residents under the Second Amendment and thereby enhance public safety.”

Anti-gun advocates are already lining up to fight the bill. They argue that the bill will put guns back in the hands of criminals, but that argument is based upon ignorance of already enacted federal laws. Existing gun laws already serve to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, but we all know how effective laws are in stopping criminals.

So why is Rubio trying to push through this highly charged and controversial bill? Why just limit it to Washington DC? Why not make it a nationwide bill?

Is it possible that this is only the beginning of a conservative campaign to be launched in hopes of winning the 2020 GOP nomination for the White House or to upset incumbent Donald Trump?

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.